See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Justin
<Harvey> Harvey hasn't had time to give feedback on other group's work.
Judy: It is one of EO's
responsibilities to look at the education and outreach aspect
of the guidelines.
... I want to wrap up our comments by next week.
the draft - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
i looked at it as well
Judy: General Impressions?
Doyle: seems a little bit cleaner and a little easier to consume
Judy: Last time looked at it?
Doyle: Last time we did it in EO
George: More concise and easier to read and more acceptable to a wider audience
Judy: Understanding Doc reaction?
Henk: i didn't have a chance to read everything but I what I read I thought if I wasn't familiar with it, I wouldn't know what I was reading
1.1.1 For non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives identify the non-text content and convey the same information. For multimedia, provide a text-alternative that identifies the multimedia. For live audio-only and live video-only, conform to success criterion 1.1.5. (Level 1)
Judy: In past we sent a ton of
... Seems like they have addressed most of them.
<Judy> Here's the WD: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/
<Judy> Here were our previous EOWG comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2005Jun/0003
Judy: Let's read the
... when you read the abstract, can you tell whats the business end of the guidelines, what's the part to which you conform?
Harvey: Conformance isn't mentioned.
Judy: I think they are trying to do it in the second paragraph.
<Judy> What about: "The success criteria are the part one has to conform to, to meet the guidelines."
Judy: I think they should in more plain language say the success criteria are what you have to be following
Jack: No link between conformance and success criteria
Judy: Status Section
... The status section changes with each draft
Jack: Seemed very boilerplate
Justin: What are we supposed to see in the status?
Judy: I had a navigational issue.
Henk: There is also a request for
... in the status section. Should it be in this section?
Judy: This is usually where we put this.
Justin: I can't even find easily what the status of the document.
Henk: First reaction was how now
can I continue.
... Next would help.
Judy: Someone has to know the terrain in order to use the document.
Justin: I had some general navigational and interaction issues.
Judy: The Introduction
<Judy> jb clarification: But people shouldn't have to know it all in advance...
Judy: What are people's comments?
Harvey: "User interface components in the content must be operable by each user." ?
Judy: More friendly, like can be operated by each user?
Henk: Isn't operable understandable?
<Harvey> Operability seems to be Jargon
George: Fairly...generic and fairly standard
Judy: Seems this intro is much much clearer
<Harvey> 2. Each interface component must be easily controlled by the user.
Judy: doesn't cover standard
... where they say WCAG 2.0 includes....should that be highlighted as different, because of it's unique role in the document.
Henk: I think not.
Judy: "Only this document is normative" ??
Harvey: Glossary link for normative.
Justin: Where is the checklist? It's not in the intro.
<Harvey> There is no mention of "checklist" in this document
<Harvey> Checklist is not in the glossary either
Harvey: It needs
... Normative has a formal definition which people need to know about.
... It has a standard meeting.
Henk: Do we need to explain it here?
Judy: In the glossary it is required for conformance.
<Harvey> The normative requirements show up in the guidelines:
Judy: When you add a glossary link, it adds a emphasis that this is important to pay attention to.
Justin: in related docs, there are two docs that are from WAI site that look different, they have a different user experience
Harvey: Put it on an indirect document.
Justin: Would that give it a layer of removal?
Judy: Maybe say apart from the guidelines
Henk: more distinction would
... I don't think the first two links should be bold.
Judy: I think that would help
... how is this procedure for comments going?
George: This is giving us some good bullet points
Henk: I think this helps us know where to read for next week.
Judy: Conformance Section
... they have changed this a lot.
Jack: As a new person, I would say what does this mean?
Pasquale: There are some guidelines that have no level 3 success criteria.
Henk: Some guidelines don't contain all success criterion levels
judy: each level...every
... for who is this very clear?
Henk: For a new reader user, of
course it is hard...you will understand it don't the way.
... I don't see how to make it easier simpler.
Harvey: I think it is a good start.
<Harvey> I think this is an effective introduction
Judy: A lot of the comments are
that is has improved.
... A lot of people aren't familiar with a conformance sections.
... This is not the same as regular intro material.
<Harvey> Informative documents: As these are often augmented, I suggest a minimal summary here, and a link to where they are found.
Judy: Maybe this needs to be in a
different section, why conformance is important and why it is
... After intro, put the more complex stuff in
yes that made sense
Henk: I think a new section on conformance would be great.
George: I think this would be a great idea.
<Harvey> Judy: "she comes, she goes!"
Judy: Conformance requirements
seems a little barried.
... In the past we had commented on this
Justin: In conformance claims, delivery units doesn't make sense.
Judy: I agree
... The Guidelines
... Is the navigation better? apparently not...
Justin: You don't know if your going to individual pages or if your going to one long thing with an anchor.
4.1 is very confusing
Judy: There is a history with
... The How to Meet for 4.1.1 is confusing.
... Glossary Section
... We have our own glossary that we are working on. We should take a good look at the glossary.
<pasquale> me too
Judy: Henk, can you take a good look at collisions with our glossary
<Harvey> I've minimal time to do any more in the next few weeks.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/round/way/ Succeeded: s/?// Succeeded: s/Justin/Judy/ Found Scribe: Justin Inferring ScribeNick: Justin Default Present: Doyle_Saylor, Shadi, Justin_Thorp, Jack, Bingham, Judy, Henk, George_Heake, pasquale, Tanguy Present: Doyle_Saylor Shadi Justin_Thorp Jack Bingham Judy Henk George_Heake pasquale Tanguy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005OctDec/0110.html Got date from IRC log name: 9 Dec 2005 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/12/09-eo-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]